Is the Eucharist cannibalism?

[Xeno.of.athens]

I'd say

No doubt you do say.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'd say if a person eats in a worthy manner of veneration they're consuming the incorruptible Love which will transform them. But if they're saying a loaf of bread was crucified and wine poured out, then they don't understand what a metaphor is.

And those who say it is only a metaphor don't understand what a mystery or a miracle is..

 

[hislegacy]

• Matthew 26:26-29 RSV-CE (26) Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." (27) And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; (28) for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (29) I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

• Mark 14:22-25 RSV-CE And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." (23) And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. (24) And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. (25) Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."

Which is it? His literal blood - or the fruit of the vine?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Which is it? His literal blood - or the fruit of the vine?

Why do you worry about this? Can't the precious blood of the Lord, Jesus Christ, be both, named by both words?

 

[hislegacy]

Why do you worry about this? Can't the precious blood of the Lord, Jesus Christ, be both, named by both words?

Answering a question with a question - do you not know? And thank you for your kind concern - Let me reassure you I am not worried in the least. I know Him and and I know the truth.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Answering a question with a question - do you not know?

It was a polite way of saying that your post is concerned with trivialities.

 

[hislegacy]

It was a polite way of saying that your post is concerned with trivialities.

No - it is directly related to the topic of the thread.

If, as Roman Catholic mysticism teaches, transubstantiation is valid and true - then by strict definition it is indeed cannibalism. -

Cannibalism defined as:

noun​

1. The act or practice of eating human flesh by mankind.

On the other hand if the wine is, as Jesus called it, the fruit of the vine. Then transubstantiation is invalidated.

I don't think the OP had this in consideration when it was posted. But a thread is opened to point to controversy, one cannot complain because of the controversy that results.

This is my polite way of pointing it out.

 

[hislegacy]

Jesus called Communion a remembrance:

​

Luke 22:19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”​

1 Cor 11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”​

​

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.​

​

​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

by strict definition it is indeed cannibalism

I was sure that in the end your position would come down to calling the real presence cannibalism.

 

[hislegacy]

I was sure that in the end your position would come down to calling the real presence cannibalism.

I stated my position quite plainly.

It was not me that brought up cannibalism. And I don't follow Roman Catholic Mysticism.

This backfired on you.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I stated my position quite plainly.

This backfired on you.

It is not a backfire on me, it is a revelation of what is truly your stated position; namely, "the real presence is cannibalism". One fully expects the precious blood of the Lord, Jesus Christ, in the chalice of Holy Communion to be associated with vampirism next.

 

[jas3]

Jesus called Communion a remembrance:

​

Luke 22:19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”​

1 Cor 11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”​

​

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.​

​

​

This objection was anticipated by @The Liturgist a few posts ago:

* Lest this be used errneously against me, I will not omit but rather address the additional fact that our Lord did also say “Do this in anamnesis of me.”

The word anamnesis was translated in the KJV as “remembrance”, but in the original Greek it has the sense of recapitulation; it means “Put yourself in this moment.”

This point of recapitulation is further emphasized by 1 Corinthians 11:26

 

[childeye 2]

That’s incorrect, and another example of the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy. The phrase “This is my body” is not equivalent in any way to not saying “This is not my body”, because in the latter case, we would have no basis for inferring that the bread was the Body of our Lord.

But that's not the case here where he was breaking bread. We have the affirmation here ---> Jesus says, "This IS my Body" (calling the bread his body). We therefore have the basis to logically conclude in a reaffirmation that Jesus does NOT mean to imply "this is NOT my body".

To put it another way, if I say “The sky is blue,” that is equivalent to me saying “The sky is not cloudy,” however, if I do not say “The sky is not cloudy,” one cannot infer that I mean to say “The sky is blue,” because I am not on record as having made any comment which could be logically contraposed against an inverse. This is the double negative problem I was trying to show you in the previous post.

I understand what you're trying to say. I think we can agree it's irrelevant what Jesus did not say.

The problem is, that’s not what you said in the previous post. You said this:

Here are the two statements. Where is there a contradiction?

This is MY body, therefore means to me that Jesus is literally talking about his real flesh and blood body that will be stripped naked, mocked, scorned, beaten, scourged and nailed to a cross the next day.

I believe that when Jesus said this is my body, he is referring to the bread he is giving those gathered to eat, as his body. Therefore, he means that the bread represents his real body that will be sacrificed the next day. It's therefore both his bread and his body when I eat sacramentally. To me it's all about venerating his loving sacrifice for me and all of us as a sacred thing when I partake of bread and wine in remembrance of him.

This directly contradicts your previous statement, because if our Lord is literally talking about His real flesh and blood body, then that validates the doctrine of the Real Presence. We believe that our Lord is literally talking about His real flesh and blood body, indeed, when He says “This is my body” and we believe that that is what we partake of in the Holy Eucharist.

I see no contradiction. Jesus is talking about his literal flesh and blood body that is going to be sacrificed on the morrow when he is referring to the bread he is breaking and calling the bread his body. To rephrase: The bread is a metaphor for his real flesh and blood body that will be sacrificed the next day. I know this because (1) his real flesh and blood body was breaking the bread and giving it to those gathered there, and (2) I know he was saying do this (break bread and share the cup) in memory of him.

We believe that He has changed the bread into His body while preserving, for most communicants, the perceptual attributes of bread, so that we can partake of the flesh which He sacrificed for us, and then, in His resurrection, glorified and made immortal and Infinite, so that there is no limit to the extent to which we can feed on Him, without harming Him; the harm was already done, and it is those who partake of the Eucharist unworthily, along with those who reject Christ, who, according to St. Paul, become guilty of the body and blood of our Lord.

When I first heard the words of Jesus, his words agreed with the Word of God in my heart, and I believed on him (Faith comes by hearing). When he said I am the bread of life I knew he meant spiritual food for one's soul, just as sure as I understood that man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.

The Living Word of God was made flesh and blood so as to come and be tortured shamed and murdered by the very world he came to save. I can say with complete conviction that I eat his real flesh and drink his real blood in remembrance of him, even because that is what was sacrificed on his cross; his real flesh and his real blood. But for me it's the willingness of his heart to sacrifice his self for the sake of sinners on a cross of torture that is the Holy imagery of both his divinity and his humanity.

6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

 

[childeye 2]

And those who say it is only a metaphor don't understand what a mystery or a miracle is..

Let me put it this way. God made the universe and everything in it through the energy of His Word. John the Baptist said it well when he said that God could make children of Abraham out of stones. It therefore stands to reason that it would be easy for God to turn bread into flesh and the fruit of the vine into blood. But I don't think that's what God is asking us to believe so as to be partaking in a worthy manner or what Paul means by discerning the body. I think God is looking for those who will believe in and who worship His Eternal Incorruptible Love displayed in the suffering of his son on the cross, and I think that's what gathers all into one body.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Let me put it this way. God made the universe and everything in it through the energy of His Word. John the Baptist said it well when he said that God could make children of Abraham out of stones. It therefore stands to reason that it would be easy for God to turn bread into flesh and the fruit of the vine into blood. But I don't think that's what God is asking us to believe so as to be partaking in a worthy manner or what Paul means by discerning the body. I think God is looking for those who will believe in and who worship His Eternal Incorruptible Love displayed in the suffering of his son on the cross, and I think that's what gathers all into one body.

Not asking; telling.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Which is it? His literal blood - or the fruit of the vine?

From a Lutheran perspective; both. Why? Because Scripture referres to it both ways.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

From a Lutheran perspective; both. Why? Because Scripture referres to it both ways.

It seems to me that the metaphoric advocates cannot comprehend that a single word can signify more than one thing at a time; this seems ironic to me, coming, as it does, from one who says it is a metaphor.

 

[Valletta]

From a Lutheran perspective; both. Why? Because Scripture referres to it both ways.

What was drunk at the meal was referred to by Jesus as His blood, the Blood of the New Covenant. That corresponded to the third cup of the Passover meal, the Passover meal traditionally had four cups that were drunk. What happened then was the traditional singing of the Psalms but instead of then having the fourth Passover cup as per tradition, they went outside. Jesus spoke of the cup in the Garden. But it wasn't until just before Jesus, on the cross, said "It is finished" that he drank the wine.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

What was drunk at the meal was referred to by Jesus as His blood, the Blood of the New Covenant. That corresponded to the third cup of the Passover meal, the Passover meal traditionally had four cups that were drunk. What happened then was the traditional singing of the Psalms but instead of then having the fourth Passover cup as per tradition, they went outside. Jesus spoke of the cup in the Garden. But it wasn't until just before Jesus, on the cross, said "It is finished" that he drank the wine.

The cup spoken of in the garden and Christ on the Cross show us that it was indeed the Father's will that He lay down His life for us. The institution of the Sacrament in the upper room was/is, as scripture says, a foretaste of the the feast to come in heaven. Through it we are joined to the benefits of His suffering, we are not participating in His suffering.

 

[The Liturgist]

From a Lutheran perspective; both. Why? Because Scripture referres to it both ways.

Indeed. And from an Orthodox perspective, we would say that it is the Body and Blood of our Lord, but retaining the outward appearance and other perceptual attributes of bread and wine under normal conditions for our comfort (but occasionally, God allows someone to see the Eucharist as the true flesh and blood of our Lord, where this is beneficial to their salvation: there was a Muslim who saw this, and immediately summoned guards, for fear that the Orthodox Christians were devouring someone, but when they returned to the parish, he saw the Eucharist in the form of bread and wine, and seeing this, he converted. And of course, since conversion to Christianity is punishable by death in the Muslim lands, he won the crown of martyrdom as soon as word got out that he had become a Nasrani (Christian) and became a glorified saint in the Orthodox church.

Now, in Orthodoxy, we are reticent to say exactly how this divine mystery actually works, since God is omnipotent and the inner workings of the Eucharist are less important than what they provide us, and like Lutherans, prefer a simple explanation, and for this reason you and I have argued against the complex Scholastic model of the Eucharist taught by Thomas Aquinas which depends upon Aristotelian categories. The Lutheran and Orthodox approaches have the benefit of a greater simplicity and do not depend upon the complex Scholastic systematic theology (which in turn motivated Calvinists to pursue even more complex models of systematic theology.*

At any rate, the argument that the Eucharist can only be bread and wine or the Body and Blood of our Lord is an obvious false dichotomy, one of a great many false dichotomies that we encounter in the belief systems of Memorialists and Zwinglians (another one being the false dichotomy that everything that does not agree with their particular Radical Reformation or Restorationist theology is somehow a product of Roman Catholicism, despite the fact that as Martin Luther realized when he studied the fascinating Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church and concluded that it was an example of a doctrinally orthodox church that had always been entirely outside the control of the Roman Pope (something which is also true of the Church of the East, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Mar Thoma Christians of India, and the Eastern Orthodox Communion; additionally the Maronites were an independent Monothelite church which happened to venerate several Roman bishops including most likely Honorius I, and which separated from the Syriac Orthodox over the issue of Monothelitism, and this enthusiasm for Rome caused them to form an alliance with the Crusaders when the latter passed through Lebanon which led to their integration into the Roman church.**


* I would argue that the Summa is relatively easy to comprehend compared to the ponderous Church Dogmatics of Karl Barth, which for all of their immense size are I would say superfluous in that Calvin’s institutes are more compact and more faithful to the Patristic tradition, but not faithful enough, since Calvin presumed to pick and choose which aspects of the theology of the Early Church he liked and would retain, which is ironic considering that later Calvinist theologians coined the term consensus patrum, yet the Institutes are not compliant with the consensus patrum insofar as they are Iconoclastic, Monergist, and only narrowly avoid Nestorianism (insofar as Calvin only reluctantly conceded that the Blessed Virgin Mary was correctly referred to as Theotokos).

** One could argue that in terms of safety, this was a good move, considering that, as far as cannibalism is concerned, the only large scale incidence of actual cannibalism in Christianity I am aware of is when the Crusaders in the First Crusade ran out of provisions while passing through what is now Eastern Turkey and Syria, and according to the Antiochian Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox Christians from the region, resorted to cannibalism, specifically targeting the local Orthodox Christian communities due to the lack of resistance they presented to the crusaders. These incidents, and other atrocities committed against the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox during the Crusades had the effect of cementing the schism that had existed between the Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople and the Roman Catholic Church since 1054, and between the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church since 1078, by giving the laity of these churches a reason to resent the Roman Catholic Church; prior to the Crusades, the Schism was essentially an issue of ecclesiastical politics with almost no appreciable impact on the lives of the Eastern Orthodox laity.

The Crusades also ironically resulted in some degree of reconciliation between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, who increasingly found themselves facing common enemies in the form of Islam and now Roman Catholicism, which made put historical record of the violent persecution inflicted on the Syriac Orthodox during the reign of Emperor Justinian and his successors five centuries previously into perspective, as a distant memory with little relevance to the current situation. Thus we can understand the process of reconciliation, which resulted in such occurrences as the attempted merger of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria in the 19th century. This was of course blocked, on the basis of divide et impera, by the Albanian Khedives (viceregal princes) who had seized power from the Ottoman Sultan in Egypt (although shrewdly still behaved as though they were his vassals, affording the Sultan every nominal courtesy, so as to avoid adding a personal insult to the real injury they had inflicted), since obviously a unified Egyptian Orthodox Church would pose more of a threat to their reign. Likewise a later Khedive also acted to prevent the Ethiopian Orthodox Church from becoming an independent church, free from Coptic Orthodox supervision, by refusing a request from the Ethiopian Emperor to increase the number of bishops to six (which under Coptic and Ethiopian canon law would have made the Ethiopian Orthodox Church ecclesiastically independent (autocephalous, to use the technical ecclesiological terminology), for similar reasons, although this would later happen in the 20th century during the reign of the martyred Emperor Haile Selassie.